|
By Marion Edwyn Harrison, Esq.
November 08, 2006
Something happened yesterday that won’t receive much publicity.
How far can State and local governments grab homeowners’ or other landowners’ property to promote private development or other uses which few folk would consider a public use? After the Supreme Court of the United States decision in Susette Kelo et al v City of London, Connecticut et al (June 25, 2005) this column twice addressed ramifications. The columns follow.
There was emphasis, and hope, that federalism would prevail: The States of the Union would do their duty, changing their laws if necessary to accord basic defenses against unbridled sequestrations. Too many problems which by right and tradition - and sometimes by mandate of the Constitution - ought to be handled within the States gravitate to, or sometimes are grabbed by, the Federal Government.
On September 30, 2006 the Louisiana electorate voted to amend its constitution. Yesterday twelve States had ballot propositions in varying degrees seeking to circumscribe the reasons why a governmental entity could take private property. Voters in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon and South Carolina approved these limitations. New Hampshire results are not yet available. California, Idaho and Washington voters rejected their propositions. Some of these changes in law will be more effective than others. The point is twofold: Numerous voters at the State, not Federal, level are asserting their rights; federalism has seen an upsurge.
Marion Edwyn Harrison is President of, and Counsel to, the Free Congress Foundation
|
